Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before we begin will the Chairman advise us on whether there is a Standing Order governing the time we have to speak?

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is nothing in Standing Orders, but generally the lead speaker gets 20 minutes, the second speaker gets 15 minutes and thereafter the speakers get ten minutes. In cases, where the speaker is engaged in an exchange with the Accounting Officer, I sometimes let the discussion run because Accounting Officers, as we have seen, often answer in a long-winded fashion. That eats into the time of the member, so I use my discretion to allow the member in possession some time for questions. If a member has a number of questions on a particular line with the Accounting Officer, it is fair to let him or her finish out the line of questioning.

The first item is the minutes of the meeting of 27 February 2014 with Rehab. We have received legal advice on the discussion and the papers at that meeting. Let me make it clear that we have requested a significant amount of information listed under 12 different headings as well as requests for information from the Department of Justice and Equality and SOLAS. We have requested that this information be provided to the committee within a two-week period.

Heading No. 12 is a request for information on the remuneration levels paid to all staff, who are paid a salary equivalent to or above the salary of grade 8 of the consolidated pay scales. We asked for that information last week and I felt that we had the agreement of Rehab to release that information to us within days. To date, Rehab has not released the information. I think we should remind them that they did inform the committee that the details would be made public. We have taken legal advice on the documents referred to by the HSE and have asked for the material in the correspondence to be made available to us in an unredacted form so that we can view the correspondence between Rehab and the HSE. I understand that part of that correspondence contains details of salaries and as part of the legal advice this morning, we have requested that as much information as is possible should be given to the committee in an unredacted form. The work of the committee on Rehab has not concluded. The information is essential in the context of the examination of section 39 organisations. Information is required and new information has emerged and we want to examine it in detail. If we need to have a meeting in public session to do so, so be it. We have sought legal advice so that we are clear on what we do. I think members will agree that should be the course of action.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not sure if this is the time to raise the following matter in respect of our sitting last week to deal with Rehab.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Now is the time to deal with matters in respect of Rehab.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It strikes me that in addition to the request for information under the 12 headings, we should ask if funding from the Department of Social Protection found its way into Rehab. We have been quoted the figure of €82 million or €83 million but we are clearly missing funding that is coming from another Department.
I know the issue concerning the firm Complete Eco Solutions is on this note. A commitment was given last week to provide the committee with documentation. It is apparent from a story in The Irish Times that the witness, Ms Kerins, was less than forthcoming in some of the information she clearly had in respect of the relationship a close relative of hers had with that organisation. I was the member who raised this issue with Ms Kerins and it is deeply unsatisfactory that the CEO of Rehab was evasive or short on the full detail that she clearly must have had when she appeared before the committee. I hope that when we get a response in respect of this item we get the fullest detailed information from Rehab on Complete Eco Solutions and the coffins.
Another issue that found its way into media which had been raised in passing at the meeting was in respect of the use of a helicopter by the CEO and potentially by other board members. At that stage jets were not mentioned but helicopters were. We did not get a satisfactory account of what was involved. In fairness to the witness, they were not pressed on the issue, nonetheless it seems that substantial hospitality, at the very least, was afforded to members of the board. It is in the public interest and in the interest of our consideration of Rehab that we would have information on that matter. That item is not covered in the 12 headings.

I would like to propose that we raise this in additional correspondence and ask for an explanation about this hospitality and the use of these jets and helicopters.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. Is there any other matter?

I received correspondence in the post yesterday which I will pass to the clerk about Complete Eco Solutions. I think it is of interest to the committee and will have to be examined. Furthermore, there is anonymous correspondence here which raises a lot of serious questions. I just opened it before the meeting, and I think the matter will have to be dealt with.

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When are we getting those answers to the 12 points that we made?

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have asked for them within two weeks, so there is one week left.

There is one other matter which I would like to clear up, because I asked the question of Ms Kerins last week and as far as I recall, there was no answer to it. I asked whether Mr. Flannery was invited to attend the meeting and whether the remuneration committee was invited to attend the meeting. There was no answer to either part of that question. In view of what happened afterwards, where it was said that Mr. Flannery was in the Houses when we were having the meeting, he could very well have been invited. He may not have been invited; I do not know. We have to find out. It is only fair to him and to the committee. We should write specifically to Ms Kerins and ask for the answer to those two questions, because there is now a third party who has not been before us, and we do not know whether he even knew about the meeting.

We need to ask those questions and we also need to ask who decided the make up of the Rehab group that came before the committee. I think that is also important. Although Ms Kerins was answering in the context of the remuneration committee, there were certain questions which she simply could not answer because she said that she had no memory of what went on. If we could get clarity on these issues, it might help to understand what happened on that day.

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think that is a very good suggestion, because you were not given an answer to that line of questioning. I am working on the assumption that Rehab will furnish us with all of the information, following the 13 points that we have now put to them. We were very clear that we wished for Mr. Flannery and the remuneration committee to appear before us. They may or may not have been asked and I take your point, a Chathaoirligh, that we need to clarify that. In addition, I suggest we reissue the invitation to both Mr. Flannery and the remuneration committee. We might receive the information first and then invite them in again. Ms Kerins said last week that she would be in a position to answer any manner of question with equal proficiency to a member of the remuneration committee, but that did not prove to be the case. She could not even explain an increase in her own salary, so we did not get the answers and we still need to see the people we initially wished to see, namely, Mr. Flannery and the members of the remuneration committee. The timing of this would of course have to be sequenced with the receipt of the information, but I wish to make that proposal to the committee.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that accepted?

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I fully agree with Deputy McDonald. Whether the people were formally invited or not - they should have been - there is no way in hell they did not know they were required here. If they had read a daily newspaper, or if they were in the Houses at the time and looked at the monitors here, they would clearly have known what we were discussing. It is quite offensive to the committee that the delegation we sought was not provided, nor was a satisfactory explanation given as to why it was not provided.

Any time we have been looking at these section 38 or section 39 agencies, it is quite normal that the chair of the board would attend with the chief executive. At the end of the day, the chief executive is an employee. The chairman of the board could also have provided significant light. The fact that the chairman of the board was not here is wholly inappropriate, so I concur with Deputy McDonald.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It may be unfair to Mr. Flannery to say that he was here in the House and should have been here in the committee. Maybe he was not invited; that is why clarification is needed. The clerk made it clear to Ms Kerins as to who should be here. We have agreed on the proposition from Deputy McDonald, and there would have to be a sequence in terms of the receipt of the information and whether or not we should have a further meeting with Ms Kerins. All of that can be considered, but we accept that Mr. Flannery and the remuneration committee will be invited, as well as others, depending on the response from Rehab.

I understand there was a perfectly valid reason the chairman of the group was not here. That was made known to me after the meeting, or perhaps just before. I am not sure. We can check that and ensure that we have a response from the chairman of the board.

Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps we can reissue the chairman's invitation as well as the information for the remuneration committee.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, and we will sequence that in the context of the information that is coming forward.

Kieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Has a deadline been set in the clerk's communications with the Rehab Group?

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We said that we expected the information within two weeks, and arising from the conversation, I think we should ask the clerk to contact the Rehab Group and say that we require the information before next Thursday.

Kieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think a deadline needs to be set for these answers, rather than it being left open ended.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I will move on to correspondence from Mr. Nicholas Jermyn of St. Vincent's University Hospital, which is a response regarding follow-up information requested at the meeting of 16 January 2014, from an anonymous letter dated 4 January 2014. This is to be noted and published. We have to set dates for that, and we can deal with it under a work programme for St. Michael's Hospital and other places.

The next piece of correspondence from Eileen Quinlivan on 25 February 2014, which deals with further information requested at a meeting on 2014, which is to be noted and published. This is about the DDDA.

Eoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can we write back to Ms Quinlivan to thank her for sending the detailed information? She sent further credit card statements from 2009 to 2013, but can we get clarity that we now have all statements for the DDDA during its existence? The last time we were sent records for the period 2004 to 2008, and there was a question mark as to whether they were all the credit cards from that time. The information that has come in is from a different period, so I would like to get clarification from the authority that we now have all the statements from 2004.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Were they full statements? Are we satisfied with the material received?

Eoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, but I wish to make sure that it is complete. I would also like to know if there an update regarding Professor Brennan.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We can send an e-mail today after the meeting.

Eoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are we looking for a written submission at this point?

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, we are looking for attendance at the committee. We want an early date and we said that the last day. The suggestion was that Professor Brennan was abroad and that she would not be available until August. We agreed at the last meeting that we would meet at any date to suit Professor Brennan and conclude our deliberations on the DDDA. We will send an e-mail again today reminding her of our interest and our expectation that she will appear sooner rather than later before the committee.

Eoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fine.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We respect the fact that she is away on work from time to time.

No. 3A.3 is correspondence dated 28 February 2014 from the NTMA re further information requested. The correspondence is to be noted and published.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to comment on No. 3A.3. Some of the content is specific to questions I asked. The correspondence was sent from the State Claims Agency, which handles, among other things, the clinical indemnity scheme and that was the main focus of our discussion at the last meeting. The longer the meeting went on, the less clear it became with regard to the number of cases settled in court, by mediation or out of court, that is, before the parties went into the court and, perhaps, the settlement was noted. I had asked for some details because the agency could not give us any realistic figures on the day. I asked how many cases were finalised in the courts in 2013. The document relates only to the clinical indemnity scheme, which is under the remit of the State Claims Agency. It states that six cases were settled in 2013. The settlements for the people concerned, that is, the plaintiffs, in four of the cases where the judgments were in their favour came to €1,053,178. That was the information I was seeking. In addition there were legal and professional costs of €1,465,470. Whatever about the poor plaintiffs, the barristers got 150% of what the plaintiffs received. Whereas the plaintiffs received approximately €1 million, the barristers received approximately €1.5 million. There is something wrong in how the Irish taxpayer has himself in this situation. People go to court after catastrophic injuries. We should rename the agency the State barristers fund rather than the State Claims Agency. There is something outrageous in 60% of the total payment going to barristers.

I have raised the matter at successive meetings with the State Claims Agency in the past two years. In its accounts the agency has a commitment of approximately €1 billion for cases to be settled. Based on the figures we have received, well in excess of €500 million and possibly up to 60% of the total could be for legal fees to the barrister profession. We do a good deal of talking at this committee and in the House about public pay scale rates and so on but this is an issue that we must address.

Let us consider the chart. I specifically asked for this information because I could not get a handle on it. I asked for details - this is only in respect of the clinical injuries scheme - of the payments in 2013 to senior counsel and who received the highest payments. The Chairman has just agreed to publish the document and it is pursuant to the public session of the committee. I do not know any of these people personally but the payments to senior counsel are outrageous. Murray McGrath received €757,728 in 2013 only in respect of his work on the clinical indemnity scheme. I do know what else he received and he may have received nothing else. Emily Egan received €694,841. It is all on the chart. Patrick Hanratty received €468,413. Declan Buckley received €363,911 and Rónán Dolan received €227,333. These five people received well in excess of €2.5 million. I will not go on to the junior counsel fees, which are for lower amounts.

I am not getting into how the figures arose but it is simply wrong. The Taoiseach is paid a salary as are Ministers but that money is more than the entire Cabinet gets paid. I have not done the tot but I believe it is more than the entire Cabinet gets paid. There is something wrong with the legal fees that the Irish taxpayer is paying. The money should be going to the people who have suffered medical negligence. Whatever about the private sector being prepared to pay these fees, the Irish taxpayer should not be paying these fees. I want this issue revisited. I have asked for the information and it is now on the public record. The State Claims Agency put it to us at the last meeting that because barristers are sole traders the agency puts the work out to tender and it cannot take on in-house barristers. If it requires a change in legislation then so be it. If an organisation like the State Claims Agency is prevented by law from employing barristers then we need to change that law. I imagine some of these barristers would be happy to work for substantially less than these figures.

Pursuant to this I am asking for some follow-up because I am outraged that €2.5 million was spent on these five people under this scheme alone. We should write back to the State Claims Agency seeking the figures paid to the top ten senior counsel for each of the past five years. The agency will come back and put it to the committee that the figure of €757,728 represented work over several years and the case was then finalised. I imagine some of those people may well be working on cases today and that they will be paid next year when the cases are finalised. We got one little snapshot for one particular year but it has not given us a proper broad view of what has been paid out. Now that we have seen this information and it is in the public arena the committee should ask for the information for the past five years for the top ten barristers. This will let us see what is happening in the State Claims Agency because it is an agency for paying barristers, it is not an agency for settling claims for people who have had clinical difficulties.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We can do that, Deputy Fleming. Perhaps the clerk will write to the agency concerned.

No. 3A.4 is correspondence from Clare McGrath, chairperson of the OPW, re further information requested from the meeting on 30 January.

We will move on to individual correspondence. Correspondence dated 20 February 2014 from Mr. Harry Lawlor, Commodity Foods Limited, re Shannon Development units 6 and 7. This is a dispute between parties and while the Committee of Public Accounts cannot get directly involved, it is important that the actions of the State be reviewed. It appears that the complaint could be referred to the Ombudsman. We are going to check that. If the matter can be referred to the Ombudsman, can the committee do it?

Clerk to the Committee:

Yes.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can we agree to check first and determine if the committee can refer it, and, if so, we will refer it on? Agreed.

No. 3B.2 is correspondence dated 14 February from Mr. Patrick Kinsella re alleged collusion, corruption and fraud. The correspondence is to be noted. It is not possible for us to deal with the matter but we will ask for it to be sent to the Courts Service or the Department of Justice and Equality.

Clerk to the Committee:

It appears to be before the courts at the moment. It is rather difficult to make it out.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can we send it to the Department of Justice and Equality for comment?

Clerk to the Committee:

Yes.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. 3B.3 is correspondence dated 28 February from the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport re roadworks in Tymon Park, Tallaght. The correspondence is to be noted and a copy forwarded to Mr. Jackie Dunne.

No. 3C is correspondence relevant to today's meeting. These are the briefing papers, statements and correspondence from the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, which we have already dealt with.

Reports, statements and accounts are next. Nos. 4.1 to 4.5, inclusive, are accounts and are to be noted. If there are any queries arising from the accounts, please talk to the clerk.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I might have missed it. Did we deal with the St. Vincent's Healthcare Group correspondence?

Clerk to the Committee:

Yes.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Have we published it?

Clerk to the Committee:

Yes.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Approximately two or three weeks ago we agreed that we wanted to hear from three section 38 organisations. One was St. Vincent's, another was the National Maternity Hospital and the last was St. Michael's House, which was at Deputy Dowds's suggestion. Roughly speaking, when do you envisage that happening?

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the next item under the works programme. Before we go to that we have received these accounts.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is grand.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

At last week's meeting we referred to some of the institutes - Cork, Tallaght, etc. - about which we had received correspondence. I am of the view that we should examine the position in respect of those institutions in the context of the information we have received to establish whether we should discuss them, how they are funded, how the money is spent and how matters are dealt with at that level. It would be of assistance if we could establish a picture as to what is happening. We could examine the position with regard to Cork and the other institutes mentioned in the context of whether it would be necessary for us to consider their accounts in conjunction with the Comptroller and Auditor General. We can factor that into our work programme, with which we are about to deal.

Deputy Harris referred to St. Vincent's and St. Michael's. We have already agreed to invite representatives from St. Michael's to come before us and we are arranging to factor in a meeting in that regard into our work schedule. We have a great deal to do in the next two weeks and by the time the process relating to the section 38 organisations is concluded, we will be able to proceed. We have agreed to bring in representatives from St. Michael's, St. Vincent's and the National Maternity Hospital. I would like this matter to be included in our work programme at the earliest possible opportunity in order that we can conclude our deliberations on the section 38 and section 39 organisations.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps before Easter, if possible.

Clerk to the Committee:

That might be possible.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As stated on the previous occasion, we can sit on another day, if necessary, so that we might conclude our work within the required timeframe. When we have concluded our deliberations on the section 38 and section 39 organisations, we will be obliged to compile a report and lay it before the Dáil.

Eoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the context of the sub-committee looking into NAMA, is there any update on our day trip?

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Daly is abroad on business. We are waiting for him to return so that we might set a date for that. We will make the visit as soon as possible. We informed him that Thursdays are the only days on which we are not available.

On correspondence and in the context of a matter in which Deputy Eoghan Murphy is interested, we have requested the reports on Poolbeg for the information of members. We have asked for the manager's report and any other reports that have been compiled.

Clerk to the Committee:

I have requested them from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps the clerk will tell the Department we want them urgently.

Clerk to the Committee:

I will.

Eoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

These reports were discussed by Dublin City Council last week. They should be made available to us. The latest update I have seen from the city manager is quite damning in respect of what is happening at present. Some €620,000 will be spent between now and June. We do not know on what this will be spent, only that it will be spent. Work on the construction of the incinerator has still not commenced. Most people are sure that it is not going to be built. I have no idea, therefore, why the city council continues to spend money. It is incredible that no one can put the brakes on in respect of this matter.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy expressed concerns about this matter previously. Other members are of the same view as him. Public money is involved and this is an issue of public concern. We have formally requested that the reports in question be furnished to us. I am of the view that those responsible should comply with our request immediately. Thereafter, the committee can decide what it intends to do in the context of inviting in witnesses to discuss this matter. I think we are being reasonable.

We wrote to the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government inquiring as to what it intends to do in respect of the Tipperary hostel project. Did we receive a response?

Clerk to the Committee:

We did not receive a full response.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We should remind the Department that we want to get our business done.

In the context of our agenda for next week, we will be meeting officials from the Department of Justice and Equality to discuss the 2012 Annual Report and Appropriation Accounts of the Comptroller and Auditor General: Vote 24 - Justice and Equality - and Chapter 9 - State Pathology Building Project. Is that agreed?

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What time are witnesses expected to be present on days on which they are required to give evidence?

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It depends on the day. If we know we are going to go into private session, we inform them of that fact. We also inform them in advance if, for whatever reason, there is going to be a delay. We try not to keep witnesses waiting.

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If we use today as an example, the witness were probably told to be in attendance at 10 a.m. and it is now 11.35 a.m.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They were told to be present from approximately 11 a.m. onwards.

Robert Dowds (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to make a suggestion. If the committee is going to be in session for an extended period on any given day, there should be a break of one hour for lunch. Would it be possible to do that?

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. People can bring sandwiches and flasks.

Eoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A request has been put forward by one of the other committees that witnesses should be given a 15-minute break every two hours. This is a matter we should consider in light of the seven-hour session in which we engaged last week.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We considered it last week and we considered it when the Garda Commissioner came before us. We had a break last week.

Eoghan Murphy (Dublin South East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We should bear the matter in mind.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I bear it in mind every week. I am very fair to all of the witnesses who come before us and I am very concerned about their needs.